Filed: Jun. 24, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1210 RICHARD LEE BAGBY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00547-RLW) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1210 RICHARD LEE BAGBY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00547-RLW) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rich..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1210 RICHARD LEE BAGBY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00547-RLW) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Lee Bagby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Lee Bagby appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to pay the statutory filing fee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bagby v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 3:09-cv-00547-RLW (E.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
